The fact that this info is public is insane. The state has no right to require the permitting of handguns.

Ranger Roberts

December 24, 2012, 03:48 PM

What is the point of the news site posting this information?

To scare law abiding citizens into giving up their legally purchased firearms?
It is unbelievable to me that any "responsible" news editor would allow this to be published!

Vonderek

December 24, 2012, 03:48 PM

Check out the comments on the website. About 100% excoriating the newspaper. Let's hope the citizens there can organize an effective boycott of the paper and its advertisers. Newspapers are barely hanging on financially in the digital age and I hope these ninnies go out of business.

Justin

December 24, 2012, 04:04 PM

Is there any way to scrape and aggregate all of this data so that we can out those who are high profile hypocrites?

somerandomguy

December 24, 2012, 04:07 PM

Not unless you have their addresses. See if the governors mansion is on there. He has a guns I heard...

Just the tone of the article is biased. Surprised the writter owns a revolver.

I don't how this is even legal - what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Editor’s note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011.
Types of handgun permits

*Permit restrictions exceed the number of licensees because permits may have more than one restriction. Rockland did not provide these data.

You mean you can only get permits if you state a need or usage? What????:fire:

Justin

December 24, 2012, 04:24 PM

Not unless you have their addresses. See if the governors mansion is on there. He has a guns I heard...

I was under the impression that Google Maps was incredibly easy to mod and very open source. I would have expected that someone with some web programming and data aggregation experience would be able to pull that data down and stuff it into an Excel spreadsheet or CSV file.

wacki

December 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

Just the tone of the article is biased. Surprised the writter owns a revolver.

Security is for the little people.

Beau Bo

December 24, 2012, 04:27 PM

Pretty big parent company - here is a map to link to your local affiliates if you choose to show your disagreement by voting with your dollars...

http://www.gannett.com/section/WHOWEARE11

AntiSpin

December 24, 2012, 04:30 PM

I zoomed in as far as possible on one of the dots. I then switched to satellite view. The dot appeared to be a specific location within a large apartment building.

But my own experience with attempting to zero in on specific addresses via the indicators of Google maps has shown me that they can be off by an address or two or three.

Whether the location that I looked at is precisely correct, or not, if the permit holder or anyone else near that red dot gets burglarized in the near future, they might very well have a case against the idiotic editor who approved that insanity.

I used to be a newspaper editor, managing editor, and publisher. I would never, not in a thousand years, approve such a crazy idea.

One thing I'll bet we can all safely bet on; when or if the burglary rates go up in the "heavy red" areas, and many guns begin to be stolen, that story will never appear in either of those papers.

Another thing that was obvious; the density of the dots increased enormously as the map approached the borders of New York City, where handgun ownership is illegal. That says to me that residents near NYC are anxious to protect themselves against armed criminals coming at them from inside the city. That was why, when I lived in NYC, I kept the Colt Officer's Match Model .38 that I possessed when I moved there, and never told anyone I had it until after I had moved away.

vtail

December 24, 2012, 04:36 PM

They should entitle this:

Gun Permit Holders AKA Houses You Should Not Rob

Skribs

December 24, 2012, 04:36 PM

Reminds me of a headline on Leno, which went something like:

"...John Smith was the other lottery winner, who has chosen to remain anonymous..."

Skribs

December 24, 2012, 04:37 PM

There's another thread on this already.

Twmaster

December 24, 2012, 04:38 PM

Anybody else notice there are no permit holders in Newtown?

jagugator

December 24, 2012, 04:47 PM

A few of our Virginia papers tried doing this with our Concealed Carry holders names. Fortunately our Governor removed the list from public view.

velojym

December 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

No, they'll never bring up this story if those areas are burglarized more. The blame will be dumped on those who would dare consider their lives worth defending.
I'd just about bet that they "sanitized" the list of anyone with political power or other influence who are their 'friends'.

76shuvlinoff

December 24, 2012, 04:59 PM

Need to post the authors name and address.

Fryerpower

December 24, 2012, 05:02 PM

The commercial appeal in Memphis, TN has had a look up available for years. I wish the state would fix this.

Time to email the link to my reps again and ask them to include language to fix this when they pass the law that lets teachers carry at school. :rolleyes:

Jim

sdhunter

December 24, 2012, 05:04 PM

Its sad to think that this is only the beginning of the critisim of law abiding gun owners. I fear that we will get a much bigger lashing before it is all said and done. What ever happened to common sense?

wow6599

December 24, 2012, 05:28 PM

Why is this posted here? I don't (and won't) want to look at the link.

Please remove. :fire:

k_dawg

December 24, 2012, 05:35 PM

The Scarlett Letter anyone?

Rollis R. Karvellis

December 24, 2012, 05:53 PM

It only took 19 posts for someone to figure out that the outed people are even more safe now compared to their niebores.

OR
Dear Mr. News Paper Guy, thank you for letting me know what house not to break into.
A. Criminal.

gym

December 24, 2012, 05:58 PM

That map is a lot of crap. I know several people who hold permits and not 1 is on there.

got cope?

December 24, 2012, 06:02 PM

Dont think of it as a map for criminals to steal guns, hopefully those permit holders will defend their home accordingly, think of it as a map of homes not to rob, but all homes without a permit holder icon = more than likely unarmed homes that can easily be pillaged with little resistance.

cvoharley

December 24, 2012, 06:04 PM

A fellow former officer had this reply after I told him about the map:

"It's all right, you know when they'll get mine from me...
Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!"

Fortunately I live in FL now and this information is not available to the public for both LE or law abiding citizens.

ephraimf

December 24, 2012, 06:14 PM

The map does work. My name and the name of a friend both come up.:cuss:

fanchisimo

December 24, 2012, 06:16 PM

This seems like a huge breech of privacy. Just because the law requires govt and police know you have a gun, that doesn't mean everybody needs to. It sounds almost like the sex offenders list, but these gun owners haven't done anything illegal. I agree that if a criminal even looks on this list, he will avoid the one where he might get shot like the plague.

Trent

December 24, 2012, 06:17 PM

This ... sickens me.

Trent

December 24, 2012, 06:18 PM

On the other hand.

Damn that's a lot of dots.

bushmaster1313

December 24, 2012, 06:19 PM

How about the addresses of people who have certain medical procedures?

How about:

Income tax records

Birth Certificates

School Records

Military Records

Immigration Records

Kevin Rohrer

December 24, 2012, 06:21 PM

Who says gun registration doesn't work to reduce crime: :evil:

kimbershot

December 24, 2012, 06:21 PM

hey, i sc we all got guns--no need for foia--all a bad guy has to figure out is who ain't armed. :evil:

ephraimf

December 24, 2012, 06:25 PM

This is exactly like a sex offender's list. If you read the article you will see that it starts off talking about a murder committed by a mentally ill person owning illegal handguns, and talks about how people should be informed so that they won't unknowingly move to an area where people have legal guns.

This is a link to the article which referernces the maps: http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056/

bushmaster1313

December 24, 2012, 06:26 PM

Under the New York Personal Privacy Act:

(7) Personal information. The term "personal information" means any information concerning a data subject which, because of name, number, symbol, mark or other identifier, can be used to identify that data subject.

Here are the prohibited act:

§ 96. Disclosure of records.

(1) No agency may disclose any record or personal information unless such disclosure is:
(a) pursuant to a written request by or the voluntary written consent of the data subject, provided that such request or consent by its terms limits and specifically describes:
(i) the personal information which is requested to be disclosed;
(ii) the person or entity to whom such personal information is requested to be disclosed; and
(iii) the uses which will be made of such personal information by the person or entity receiving it; or
(b) to those officers and employees of, and to those who contract with, the agency that maintains the record if such disclosure is necessary to the performance of their official duties pursuant to a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or executive order or necessary to operate a program specifically authorized by law; or
(c) subject to disclosure under article six of this chapter unless disclosure of such information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this chapter; or
(d) to officers or employees of another governmental unit if each category of information sought to be disclosed is necessary for the receiving governmental unit to operate a program specifically authorized by statute and if the use for which the information is requested is not relevant to the purpose for which it was collected; or
(e) for a routine use, as defined in subdivision ten of section ninety-two of this article; or
(f) specifically authorized by statute or federal rule or regulation; or
(g) to the bureau of the census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title XIII of the United States Code; or
(h) to a person who has provided the agency with advance written assurance that the record will be used solely for the purpose of statistical research or reporting, but only if it is to be transferred in a form that does not reveal the identity of any data subject; or
(i) pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of a data subject, if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the data subject at his or her last known address; or
(j) to the state archives as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the state or for evaluation by the state archivist or his or her designee to determine whether the record has such value; or
(k) to any person pursuant to a court ordered subpoena or other compulsory legal process; or
(l) for inclusion in a public safety agency record or to any governmental unit or component thereof which performs as one of its principal functions any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, provided that, such record is reasonably described and is requested solely for a law enforcement function; or
(m) pursuant to a search warrant; or
(n) to officers or employees of another agency if the record sought to be disclosed is necessary for the receiving agency to comply with the mandate of an executive order, but only if such records are to be used only for statistical research, evaluation or reporting and are not used in making determination about a data subject.

(2) Nothing in this section shall require disclosure of:
(a) personal information which is otherwise prohibited by law from being disclosed;
(b) patient records concerning mental disability or medical records where such disclosure is not otherwise required by law;
(c) personal information pertaining to the incarceration of an inmate at a state correctional facility which is evaluative in nature or which, if disclosed, could endanger the life or safety of any person, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law;
(d) attorney's work product or material prepared for litigation before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative tribunals, as described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of section three thousand one hundred one of the civil practice law and rules, except pursuant to statute, subpoena issued in the course of a criminal action or proceeding, court ordered or grand jury subpoena, search warrant or other court ordered disclosure.

Civil action available for those who are outed:

§ 97. Civil remedies.

(l) Any data subject aggrieved by any action taken under this article may seek judicial review and relief pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.

(2) In any proceeding brought under subdivision one of this section, the party defending the action shall bear the burden of proof, and the court may, if the data subject substantially prevails against any agency and if the agency lacked a reasonable basis pursuant to this article for the challenged action, award to the data subject reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements reasonably incurred.

(3) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or abridge the right of any person to obtain judicial review or pecuniary or other relief, in any other form or upon any other basis, otherwise available to a person aggrieved by any agency action under this article.

I think we have oodles and oodles of civil actions awaiting, unless the disclosure of this type of information is authorized by statute.

Could also be conspiracy to violate civil rights

OilyPablo

December 24, 2012, 06:31 PM

The author and the people he cites act like it's some kind of completely scary thing. Oh my God my neighbors are exercising a right in the Constitution......

texasgun

December 24, 2012, 06:32 PM

only 4 (!) gun permits in ALL of manhattan? and only a few in Queens? C'mon.... not sure what database he used but that awfully incomplete....

sidheshooter

December 24, 2012, 06:43 PM

I have the opposite view as those that see this as a list of places not to rob: it may well be a list of places not to invade, or burgle at night, but it is also a shopping list for thieves who specialize in waiting until a target goes to work.

Curse that paper. I hope a lack of subscribers takes them down.

fanchisimo

December 24, 2012, 06:45 PM

The accuracy of the list isn't the issue, if even one person on that list is accurate, their privacy is being violated.

berettaprofessor

December 24, 2012, 07:09 PM

You know, you'd think the newspaper editor would be a little afraid to put out information like that.

jason41987

December 24, 2012, 07:45 PM

interesting that you use the term "witch-hunt" as in the 1600s, the witch hunts were spread by two things... first, a small group of people began to spread rumors about supposed witches, claiming they would kidnap and eat babies, or boil them up into potions.... well, the left wing media is using the connecticut shooting as an analog to this 17th century story

so out of the complete and utter 17th century ignorance, these stories and rumors heard by the uneducated and irrational combined with their complete fear and cowardess of the unkown, of the things they couldnt explain lead to the wrongful persecution and murder of many, many people

so i completely agree with the term "witch hunt".. and what this newspaper made an attempt at doing was make formal accusations of who are the witches in this mess hoping the people will march to their houses with torches and pitchforks because the people who wrote the article is too spineless to confront them theirselves

browneu

December 24, 2012, 08:06 PM

I'm not familiar with New York but how many dots are in perceived "good" areas compared to "bad" areas.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

cheesebigot

December 24, 2012, 08:17 PM

Not that I'm advocating it, but you can take the Google map object from the page source and reverse geocode it via a client-side Javascript run into a locally written file.

(Un?)fortunately, Google only allows 2500 calls of that API call per day per IP, so it'd take a few days to aggregate everything, but it most certainly can (and probably has been) done.

Good data in bad hands is worse than bad data in good hands.

Screamin'Eagle

December 24, 2012, 08:29 PM

Sorry, didn't see link. I hope all of these permit holders find retribution in the courts.

r1derbike

December 24, 2012, 09:33 PM

Hmmm...class action lawsuit(s)? There have been many incidents of this happening elsewhere. Memphis hangs in memory, for some reason.

gamestalker

December 24, 2012, 10:11 PM

Back in the 1990's when I lived in South Dakota they would publish the names and address of anyone who had passed their CWP test. So the burglar knows who owns a handgun I guess?
GS

Ratshooter

December 24, 2012, 10:35 PM

I think the best way to thank this publisher would be to post his name, where he lives and his wifes name. Also the names of his children and where they go to school. If his wife works, where does she work and what times are his house empty. Does HE own a gun? If not he is not a threat to a BG. His home # and cell # would be nice too. Pictures of him, his wife and kids would be just great.

Then that SOB can see what its like to be on the receiving end of public exposure.

This is the most f-up thing i have seen yet. living on long island, i dont see a red dot on my town,not yet luckily. nys has a 6 month wait, with backround checks, letters of reference,why dont they make a map of all the convicted child molesters & rapists.no instead, its law abiding citizens who went through one of the most rigorous backround checks & charactor references & investigations in the country.why should that be publicly accessed records,that makes no sense. all these names are in the pistol section of the police dept?Now im pissed.....

MilsurpShooter

December 25, 2012, 01:36 AM

I wrote the NRA awhile back when they first pulled a stunt like this. This one's the second, the first time they went to the county with Freedom of Information acts, got all the registered gun owners on a list and put it up in a searchable excel document with name's and street names (but they redacted the towns out of the goodness of their heart)

Reason they had back then? An apparent loophole in NYS gun laws that made firearms that were being passed down by deceased family members lost track of in the registration.

NRA pretty much told me nothing they could do about it because it's New York.

The comment section of the web page has gone to facebook status because of the debates people were having, where some "people" decided it only fair to post reporters, editor's etc personal information. Which they didn't much care for.

The "Paper" is unbelievably anti-gun, and it almost seems as if they make issues up just to justify doing things like this.

for the record, yes I'm a resident of that county

You mean you can only get permits if you state a need or usage? What????:fire:

In this county, the requirement for full carry is that you have to have “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession”

Without the license of some form (target, hunting, premise, full carry, it's a graduated license system) you are not allowed to even go into a gun store and touch a pistol.

toivo

December 25, 2012, 02:22 AM

Anybody else notice there are no permit holders in Newtown?

Newtown is in Connecticut. The list is supposed to be permit holders in the counties of Westchester and Rockland in New York State. What's making me scratch my head is that there are some dots there that are clearly in other NY counties, as well as in Connecticut. How can you hold a permit from one county when you live in another county or even another state?

There is a type of permit called "premises-only." Maybe these are the home addresses of people who have a premises-only permit for a business in Rockland or Westchester?

Some jackass did this with all New York permits a few years ago -- not a newspaper; just a guy with a website. Also no map; just a list of names and addresses. The data wasn't at all up-to-date: One of the listed individuals was Eleanor Roosevelt of Hyde Park, NY.

reggie_love

December 25, 2012, 02:27 AM

Sickening. They just put a "ROB ME NOW" sign on the heads of law-abiding innocents.

I'd wish violence on the people responsible for this, but it seems that's only for anti-gun people. Therefore... I hope the editor of this rag stubs his toe and it's awful.

cvoharley

December 25, 2012, 02:27 AM

We had a case down here in Flahrada (Florida for the Southern folk) where three kids broke in a State Trooper's home knowing full well there would be weapons inside. This is one of the reasons why I'm thankful we have some protection under the law for retired & active law enforcement.

There is the link to the story. (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/16-year-old-accused-of-shooting-dog-during-burglar/nTGDQ/)

OilyPablo

December 25, 2012, 02:29 AM

In this county, the requirement for full carry is that you have to have “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession”

Without the license of some form (target, hunting, premise, full carry, it's a graduated license system) you are not allowed to even go into a gun store and touch a pistol.

Not even sure where to start. The words "shall not be infringed" are on my forehead. This state law trumps fed law? Has it been challenged at all?

SO much for --Don't ask/Dont' tell --with respect to CC firearms.:banghead: Yep public info on ALL POSSIBLE employees at those papers would be a good idea.:cool: But what paper would DARE publish this info?:evil:

joed

December 25, 2012, 09:02 AM

The Plain Dealer in Ohio did something similar a few years ago. Now they are in financial trouble, I hope they go under.

I'm also for censorship of the news reporting. If they are against my 2nd amendment rights then I'm against their 1st amendment rights.

Hawaiian

December 25, 2012, 01:18 PM

In Oregon, the Sheriff's office has refused to release the information. They were sued by the local media and the court ruled it was public information and the media was allowed access to it. The sherrif then sent all CC holders a new application form to sign with a box to check requesting that their personal information remain private. The court has not ruled on this, however the sheriff continues to deny the media requests for information. Yes, the Sheriff recognizes this could be a potential shopping list for the bad gun to steal firearms.

goldie

December 25, 2012, 01:47 PM

Why dont they post the names & addresses of everyone on prescription drugs,anti depressants,oxycodone while they are at it.....

Hacker15E

December 25, 2012, 02:58 PM

So, I take it you guys don't like this particular flavor of the 1st Amendment?

k_dawg

December 25, 2012, 03:33 PM

So, I take it you guys don't like this particular flavor of the 1st Amendment?

The 1st amendment never covered harrassment, threats and intimidation.

Manco

December 25, 2012, 03:39 PM

What ever happened to common sense?

It never was common, and what little there is left at any point in time is constantly eroded by media saturation.

Damn that's a lot of dots.

But not enough, and irrationally fearful majorities are very good at stomping on unfairly demonized minorities--this has happened with great frequency throughout history, and of course continues today in many forms.

The author and the people he cites act like it's some kind of completely scary thing. Oh my God my neighbors are exercising a right in the Constitution......

That old thing?

So, I take it you guys don't like this particular flavor of the 1st Amendment?

Not when it works against liberty rather than for it.

gym

December 25, 2012, 03:56 PM

This idiot bought himself a world of pain. Whoever is at the bottom of this will be held accountable. That's not a threat it's a fact. he made a mistake that just put peoples lives in danger.
I am sure that legally or even physically there are those who will act on this information. If because of his stuidity someone is killed, he will be an accesory to murder.
Also there are those who may have no sense of humor about such things. There are certain lines you just don't cross.I hope no one is hurt or killed because some jerk, decided to post this.
Forget about rights, there is right and wrong, this was obviouslly wrong.

.
New York newspaper faces backlash after publishing map of gun permit holders

Published December 25, 2012

A local New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have handgun permits.

The newspaper obtained, and then published, the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties through a Freedom of Information Act request.

But readers swiftly condemned the move. They pointed out that the interactive map could make the gun owners a target, but also make clear to would-be robbers which homes do not contain a gun.
.

.

Manco

December 25, 2012, 05:37 PM

I read yesterday............that this country is more divided now then during the Civil War.

I don't find this difficult to believe. I think the situation is more comparable to McCarthyism during the early years of the Cold War, though, except in reverse with the socialists in control.

Texan Scott

December 25, 2012, 05:44 PM

I wonder if it occurred to them that many members of the local public that they peed on might also be subscribers and readers... hmmm. I wonder if a sudden, large drop in circulation would teach them anything?

The database they pulled from may be out of date or incomplete for Westchester. I've had my permit for two years, and I'm not on there. Interesting factual error: they begin with saying that "it doesn't mean they have a gun" which is pretty much impossible - one of the opening phases of acquiring the permit is to purchase a handgun - it sits in the dealer's vault until your permit is approved. It's now registered to you, and listed on that permit. I suppose someone could get a gun and the permit, and then "delete" the firearm from it, leaving themselves with no listed weapons, but that's pretty rare.

LoHud uses Facebook for their comments and the negative comments about the permit map were pretty staggering in their intensity and number.
LOTS of people attesting that they have either canceled their subscription, or are about to...

gym

December 25, 2012, 06:34 PM

I put it on their website, via facebook, let's see if it stays up.I'm getting a lot of positive feedback, people are annoyed that they did this, from both sides of the debate.

toivo

December 25, 2012, 09:11 PM

So, I take it you guys don't like this particular flavor of the 1st Amendment?
No. This information should be confidential, just like your driving record, medical records, and financial records: accessible only with a court order or to authorized agencies, e.g. insurance company, doctor, credit agency, etc.

Hacker15E

December 25, 2012, 09:16 PM

No. This information should be confidential, just like your driving record, medical records, and financial records: accessible only with a court order or to authorized agencies, e.g. insurance company, doctor, credit agency, etc.

I agree -- it should be. But, that is something to take up with the legislators in NYS who have declared that information public.

It has nothing to do with the newspaper that had the lack of taste to obtain it legally and publish it.

toivo

December 25, 2012, 09:22 PM

It has nothing to do with the newspaper that had the lack of taste to obtain it legally and publish it.
Actually, it might. FOIL requires the person requesting the info to go on record by filling out paperwork. It is arguable that sharing the data so broadly is an illegal attempt to circumvent that requirement. Unless the entire readership of the paper and viewership of its website have signed the form, they may not in fact be legally entitled to the information. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

Certaindeaf

December 25, 2012, 09:31 PM

Maybe it should be public record who's on welfare or any sort of social service program.

reggie_love

December 25, 2012, 10:16 PM

Imagine if they had posted a similar map for everyone with a prescription for strong painkillers. You know, for the children.

It's disgusting. An open invitation for robbery and harassment.

opto_isolator

December 25, 2012, 10:31 PM

I posted this on the local huffpo rag:

Completely irresponsible, reckless, and negligent. This saddens me that people have stooped to this level of childishness. Have we not forgotten what history has shown with the publishing of "lists?" I guess McCarthyism is alive and well to those that wish harm on law abiding gun owners? Publishing this list is irresponsible on so many levels, and potentially puts these folks at risk, not only of potential burglary, but of retaliation. Seeing some of the childish and horrible comments that are being levied at people that "don't agree with your agenda" of banning guns would put me on edge as well - how about death threats? Have folks really stooped to this level? My god.

gkainz

December 25, 2012, 11:06 PM

Considering Sarbane-Oxly act requires publicly-traded companies to protect Personal Identity Information with large financial fines for failures, I'm shocked that this could be allowed. I know he source is not a public company, but I wonder if they could fall under the same protection of information requirements.
Although they are seldom our friends, I wonder if the ACLU could be brought into the fray and coerced to work for our side on a lawsuit.

bldsmith

December 26, 2012, 03:05 AM

They tried having all the CHL holders listed in the paper here in Or. When someone posted all the addresses of the people pushing the legislation, home and work. Plus phone and email, the uproar slowed significantly. Then the legislature voted against the list. In the mean time we had to request our personal data remain confidential and state the reason we acquired a CHL was for personal protection. What a bunch of BS.

sawdeanz

December 26, 2012, 04:20 AM

I am furious right now. This is certainly one of the most biased and unethical moves I have ever seen from a "newspaper." This in fact should give us ammo when the antis try to push for gun registration, as I can't imagine very many people find this ok, let alone legislators. Is this still up? After all the negative response I don't see how any business could stay a float. This just spurs my sence of activism even more. It seems to me so often that the media gets this impression that gun owners are this small minorty and so can assert their views.we can't let them forget this is a democracy where it is up to us, the population who decides what kind of gun laws we should have

JohnBiltz

December 26, 2012, 05:44 AM

My understanding is there are a couple of FBI agents on that list and they are not amused.

I guess the newspaper is hoping to get more stolen guns on the street.

Deanimator

December 26, 2012, 06:44 AM

So, I take it you guys don't like this particular flavor of the 1st Amendment?
So then you wouldn't mind them publishing:

lists of women with restraining order/orders of protection
people with HIV/AIDS
people who have been admitted as psychiatric in-patients

How about THOSE "particular flavors" of the 1st Amendment?

Hacker15E

December 26, 2012, 07:48 AM

So then you wouldn't mind them publishing:

lists of women with restraining order/orders of protection
people with HIV/AIDS
people who have been admitted as psychiatric in-patients

How about THOSE "particular flavors" of the 1st Amendment?

<shrug>

Yep. That's what's ensured by the Amendment, too.

I don't have to like it, but it is most certainly protected speech and press.

toivo

December 26, 2012, 11:11 AM

Yep. That's what's ensured by the Amendment, too.

I don't have to like it, but it is most certainly protected speech and press.

It's not that simple, Hacker15E. The First Amendment doesn't trump any and every right to privacy. Some of those rights are legally protected too.

Hacker15E

December 26, 2012, 12:20 PM

It's not that simple, Hacker15E. The First Amendment doesn't trump any and every right to privacy. Some of those rights are legally protected too.

Well, I guess we shall see what the lawsuits to follow say about it, since that is where such legal comparisons are actually decided.

This is not the first time that names and addresses of permit holders have been published in the press (although not in NYS so far as I know).

wacki

December 26, 2012, 12:28 PM

Well, I guess we shall see what the lawsuits to follow say about it, since that is where such legal comparisons are actually decided.

This is not the first time that names and addresses of permit holders have been published in the press (although not in NYS so far as I know).

The 1st protects political speech. Which is why you can't "yell fire in a crowded theater".

Attacking public figures like politicians is considered political speech. Publicly attacking private individuals is not generally considered political speech. Private individuals get much more protection.

Unfortunately we live in a "5-4" world and judges are human and have all the flaws that come with being human.

Certaindeaf

December 26, 2012, 12:40 PM

So is this for a handgun permit or a carry permit? Here, as was said earlier, names in a certain couny were made public a ways back yada yada. These were concealed carry permits though.. is it still "concealed" and or are you breaking the law by carrying concealed but carrying a huge sign saying you are carrying a gun?.. kinda the same thing as making the information known through a list/map etc.

joed

December 26, 2012, 12:44 PM

Well, I'm as mad as the rest of you and did something about it. And I've called those involved and told them how I feel about their story and paper.

Those are just CCW permits registered in Westchester county. I live in the Hartford CT area and there is only one dot in Hartford and it sure isn't me. I am registered in CT, not in Westchester county NY. There are plenty of CCWs that are not listed on that map.

k-frame

December 26, 2012, 12:57 PM

To my surprise someone at the Poynter Institute was critical of the act (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)to publish the information (although I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion about skipping the permitting process):
The Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, notes that some other news agencies have published various types of databases as well.

"Publishing gun owners' names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause," said Al Tompkins, Poynter senior faculty, in a statement Wednesday. "Unwarranted publishing of the names of permitted owners just encourages gun owners to skip the permitting."

Certaindeaf

December 26, 2012, 03:09 PM

I think you need a permit to grow weed. I wonder how many of those permits they have given out over there. That's against Federal law. I wonder if you get an "A" painted on your chest if you grow weed over yonder.

bobbo

December 26, 2012, 03:45 PM

In New York, under statue, all licenses issued by the state are public information. Driving, hairdressing, funeral directing and pistols are all the same, and all can be released by the respective licensing authority. The paper did nothing illegal. ANYBODY can go in to a sheriff's office and ask for this information at ANY time. Any criminal could go in and ask for the same thing, and they could NOT be turned down. The possible civil actions to the paper are minimal, unless they knowingly left people out or lied about people on the list.

A few points from previous posters:
-- You do NOT have to own a pistol to get a permit. You don't have to have one sitting in a vault anywhere. You can get one and never put a handgun on it.

-- All of your handguns must be on your permit. Even a blackpowder handgun IF YOU HAVE STUFF TO LOAD IT must be registered.

Fun Fact of the Day: Robert Freeman, who runs the state's Committee on Open Government, feels the actual guns on your permit should be public information, not just who has a permit. The statute doesn't say that outright, but it also doesn't preclude that information from being released.

-- You MUST get a permit in New York BEFORE you even TOUCH a gun at a store, let alone BUY one. Technically, if you and your mother go shooting and she TOUCHES your gun and it's not on her permit, she just committed a felony.

--You can cross-register handguns. For example, your mother and you have a permit. You can list each other's guns on your own permits. Works really well, actually, for handling after someone dies, moves or goes to jail and loses their gun rights. I have a friend whose Kimber is on four different permits.

Certaindeaf

December 26, 2012, 03:50 PM

In New York, under statue, all licenses issued by the state are public information. Driving, hairdressing, funeral directing and pistols. The paper did nothing illegal. ANYBODY can go in to a sheriff's office and ask for this information at ANY time. The possible civil actions are minimal, unless they knowingly left people out or lied about people on the list.
I gather that this is tremendously special and apparently the gnawed upon purple (contended) bone. that'll change. this is what is at issue

berettaprofessor

December 26, 2012, 04:46 PM

If you haven't seen it, there's a nice response to the problem here:

<link removed>

This guy posted not only the names, addresses and phone numbers of the writer, editor, and publisher, he included pictures, and links to facebook pages of those individuals AND THE ENTIRE NEWSPAPER STAFF!

This is a great lesson in democracy, folks!

MilsurpShooter

December 26, 2012, 05:03 PM

The talking heads on TV are beginning to discuss this story, all the 1st ammendment people saying it's public record and if you don't want your information out there then you shouldn't apply for a permit. Any of your neighbors can fill out a Freedom of Information request and get this information.

I'm hoping soon, that someone will come right out and say that "If my neighbor is so concerned, let them go down and get the information themselves for them to have, not broadcast it to the world in an easy to read and printable shopping list."

They never backed down after their last attempt at this:

This was the first time in 2006
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/NEWS01/612100348/-1

They still think they've done nothing wrong.

coolluke01

December 26, 2012, 05:33 PM

At first I was, in the same boat as most, thinking we should publish the names and addresses of those that would post the info on permit holders. It is not the high road though. If we really feel that this information could be used to cause danger or harm or is at least an invasion of privacy, then we can't in good couscous post the same info about them.

I would respectfully ask for this info in post #102 to be taken down and not shared. When you fight with fire, someone always gets burned. I don't wish on the editors what they did to those permit holders.

Posting the pictures of their kids is really crossing the line.

Larry Ashcraft

December 26, 2012, 05:48 PM

At first I was, in the same boat as most, thinking we should publish the names and addresses of those that would post the info on permit holders. It is not the high road though. If we really feel that this information could be used to cause danger or harm or is at least an invasion of privacy, then we can't in good couscous post the same info about them.

I would respectfully ask for this info in post #102 to be taken down and not shared. When you fight with fire, someone always gets burned. I don't wish on the editors what they did to those permit holders.

Posting the pictures of their kids is really crossing the line.
I agree. I've removed the link.

Let's keep this high road folks.

jrdolall

December 26, 2012, 11:09 PM

This information just shows criminals which houses to avoid. Assuming criminals read this publication.

Kim

December 27, 2012, 12:39 AM

Some States do not allow the info to be public. Most are pro 2nd amendment states. The anti's love letting this happen. My State does NOT allow this to be public.

MilsurpShooter

December 27, 2012, 01:00 AM

This information just shows criminals which houses to avoid. Assuming criminals read this publication.
Here's hoping a home owner manages to stop a burglary with a legally held long gun and the crook blurts out "I didn't think any guns were here"

I know a few of those houses, surprised their not on the map but by no means are they unarmed lol

OilyPablo

December 27, 2012, 01:07 AM

The whole first amendment discussion is a very important thing, but I agree this is not such protected speech. Really a statute should be in place to keep it private.

The worse thing to me is this newspaper published this to shame and to "warn" others that there might be gun owners in their area. The whole yellow/baiting journalistic view from on high disgusts me. :barf: Frankly it reminds me of some really bad government controlled media with an overt crackdown by dividing those that have from those that don't and we know who the bad eggs are.

tigeroldlone

December 27, 2012, 02:32 AM

I'm not sure I would dislike my name and address posted unless I was liberal politician up for re- election soon.

Hacker15E

December 27, 2012, 10:35 AM

The whole first amendment discussion is a very important thing, but I agree this is not such protected speech. Really a statute should be in place to keep it private..

Agreed, but, again, this is an issue that should be directed at local legislators and not at the newspaper.

gym

December 27, 2012, 10:42 AM

As one who had a home invasion in 1979, and they had no idea that I had a gun. I would not appreciate my name being on that list. It was in Queens NY.
I also owned a business in Queens and LI, along with Manhatten, and why would I want clients asking me about why I owned a gun. Being in the service business you don't want to loose clients for no reason.
Their were bound to be some who would not have frequented my salon if they knew that there were armed people in there. All of the managers except one had guns.We had 5 salons. My attorney and accountant also carried guns, we dealt with cash only back then.
That's a good enough reason for me, aside from the obvious one, like breaking in to your home to steal it.

Dave Workman

December 27, 2012, 01:04 PM

Guys, I wrote about it today and linked this thread in my piece, so I figure you all have a right to see what I say...

Here's a thought, not sure how well it will be received but instead of publishing the names of law abiding citizens who have followed the letter of the law in purchasing firearms. How about we publish a list of people who are mentally ill? How well would that be received by the liberal's? Law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights are not the problem, criminals and those who are mentally ill are. Personally, I'm not as concerned about my neighbors who own guns as I am about the ones whose mental health is questionable at best.

sawdeanz

December 27, 2012, 07:33 PM

Its not just the legality of it, it is just plain unethical and biased reporting. If enough people complain they might realize the error of their ways (but probably not). At any rate citizens should get the law changed as it is in other states

Lex Luthier

December 27, 2012, 08:11 PM

Per the Blaze, some blogger posted the names and addresses of all employees of the newspaper that released that map. They were all public record, but they could not get the deets on their independent contractors. Serves them all right.

RetiredUSNChief

January 6, 2013, 02:31 AM

NOTE:

The bulk of my posting is duplicated from another I made on a similar string:

There is a lot of bruhaha about this...and rightfully so.

People who do this kind of stuff are doing it because of the impact that their controvertial actions will have...not because it falls under some moral obligation or right. Everybody knows it, even if they hide behind the "it's legal" excuse.

Yes, the media has the right to do a lot because of "Freedom of Press". However there is an important thing to realize about rights:

NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. All rights have limitations on them, like it or not. This is because we cannot exercise our rights without impacting others as a society. When that impact becomes adverse to anothers rights, then that right must be limited.

Freedom of religion does not mean one has the right to practice human sacrifice in this country, even if it's part of the religion of an individual. The right to freedom of speech does not allow one to incite riots or sedition. The right to keep and bear arms does not allow one to use them in illegal activities.

One of my Quotes of the Week at work was "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr)

Currently, there may not be much that can be done about the direct act of publishing that information because the laws DO make it public information.

HOWEVER, this does not release the media from responsibility for any potential consequences of that action. If their actions can be shown to have caused someone harm, or death, then they can be held liable.

Also, though releasing that information may have been legal, some of that information which was released MAY have been against other statutes. Such as releasing the names and addresses of those involved in law enforcement, or who have retired from that role. Even if those names were not released as "former officer Joe Schmoe", the fact that "Joe Schmoe, 1313 Mockingbird Lane" was released may still constitute a violation of such statues.

I foresee a number of law suits directly related to the release of the information. And I also foresee a number of upcoming law suits dealing with any collateral consequences as well.

Currently, some government officials have taken a stand against releasing any such information, backed by State Senator Greg Ball. I believe they have a good basis for doing so, even though The Journal News is crying that they can't do this.

These officials have taken an important stand in saying that they believe the wholesale release of such information in manner in which The Journal News did is dangerous and an invasion of privacy.

Personally, I think that this action may backfire against the liberal gun control agenda for a variety of reasons. So it may turn out to be a boon in the long run.

In the meantime, let us pray that no harm comes to people because of these actions.

toivo

January 6, 2013, 02:45 AM

Well said, RetiredUSNChief. Unfortunately, there are already some dangerous ripples from this:

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said that inmates are using the map of legal handgun permit holders published by the Journal News to threaten and intimidate guards, Fox News reported Friday.

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," he said.

"You have guys who work in New York City who live up here. Now their names and addresses are out there, too," added Robert Riley, an officer with the White Plains Police Department and president of its Patrolman’s Benevolent Association.

Well said, RetiredUSNChief. Unfortunately, there are already some dangerous ripples from this:

I hope some serious law suits, with sharp teeth, comes about from every such incident.

Anybody affected needs to document the bejeebers out of everything and contact attorneys in order to make the evidence iron-clad.

Hacker15E

January 6, 2013, 11:08 AM

NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. All rights have limitations on them, like it or not. This is because we cannot exercise our rights without impacting others as a society. When that impact becomes adverse to anothers rights, then that right must be limited.

Sounds like the argument used for the AWB.

Carl N. Brown

January 6, 2013, 11:40 AM

This have been a burr under my saddle for years, and I'll get to that, and yeah, part of this rant I have posted before.

Putnam County, New York, clerk refuses to release pistol permit data to newspaper.

"This certainly puts my public in danger," Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said Thursday following a news conference in which he was backed by the county executive and other elected officials.

The Journal News requested pistol permit info for the same information supplied by other counties from Putnam County, and the county clerk just said no way, he refused to release public information that could endanger the public. Public release could endanger:
o Judges or police officers with personal permits could be located by vengeful criminals;
o People with protective orders who have relocated to avoid threats could be located via the database by their stalkers or attackers.

The Putnam Co. NY county clerk said if you want government information on permit holders, come down to the office and fill out the paperwork so he could have you on public record as requesting public records on another private citizen. Sounds good to me. When I wanted to research land on Brown's Mountain, I had to go to the county clerk's office and get the plat maps, last purchase price, taxes, etc., in person.

Well, on me you can go to the Memphis Commercial Appeal webpage on Tennessee Handgun Carry Permits

http://www.commercialappeal.com/data/gunpermits/

and get this:

Last Name BROWN
First Name CARL
Middle Name NAAMAN
Birth year 1948
City KINGSPORT
County SULLIVAN
ZIP 37664
Issue Date 2/1/2011
Expiration Date 4/8/2015

Tennessee gunowners were able to pressure Memphis Commercial Appeal to remove the Street Address, even though that and TN Drivers License and Social Security Number are all "part of the public record".

WHY? For the benefit of people like this:

There's a public interest involved

I strongly support your decision to publish an online searchable database of citizens who are permitted to carry concealed handguns.

Any private citizen who carries a loaded, concealed handgun in and among the public constitutes a potential threat to public safety. Those individuals are not law enforcement officials and have no official authorization guiding their individual decisions to draw and fire their weapons in public.

Hence, the public's only recourse is information: If we know who these people are who carry concealed weapons, we can give them wide berth and/or keep their actions under close scrutiny.

In contrast, gun owners who keep their weapons at home, at the firing range or on the hunting field do not, per se, constitute a potential threat to public safety. Privacy can be maintained because the ownership and use of their weapons is private.

State Sen. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, has introduced a bill in the General Assembly that would make it a crime to disclose the names of those who are permitted to carry concealed handguns (SB 1126). I urge the public to oppose this apparent self-serving initiative. The public interest and safety are clearly served by existing freedom of information statutes.

It was revealing to see how just many members of the General Assembly have carry permits. I urge readers to use the database and see for themselves which public officials (local, state and federal) are carrying lethal weapons in and among the public they purport to serve.

Gregory W. Boller
Collierville

It was revealing to see how just many members of the General Assembly have carry permits. Oh, yeah, there have been all manner of violent street crimes perpetrated by state legislators roaming about with pistols in their pockets.:rolleyes:

I have taken the database and run the name of the suspect in every report in the local paper of a gun crime or reckless use of a gun that I find. NEVER ONCE HAVE I HAD A HIT ON THE CARRY PERMIT DATABASE. That database does not warn the public of "potential threats to public safety" or people we need to give "a wide berth and/or keep their actions under close scrutiny". It does feed the paranoia of anti-gun nuts and gives them a list of people to fear, which I suppose makes some maroons happy.

Putnam County New York considers publication of pistol permit holders a threat to public safety because, among other reasons:
o People with protective orders who have relocated to avoid threats could be located via the database by their stalkers or attackers.

That last one is one I have hammered on since I found out the Memphis Commercial Appeal had put up a searchable website for all Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit holders. Enough of those are people who got a permit to carry in response a death threat and who relocated to throw off stalkers, to make public release of the info endangerment to them. My sister chased off a home invader and detained his accomplice for arrest; she helped put both men in prison; if she had a carry permit, they could find that out and her new address through those websites; thank God in Tennessee under court and attorney general interpretation of the state constitution RKBA there is an absolute right to have a gun in your home for self defense without permit or license.

RetiredUSNChief

January 7, 2013, 03:30 AM

Sounds like the argument used for the AWB.

And your point is very well taken, Hacker15E.

Nonetheless, it is very true...no right and no freedom is absolute.

anchorman

January 7, 2013, 03:41 AM

On the other hand.

Damn that's a lot of dots.
people have no concept of scale. 80 million gun owners is a LOT of people. 300+ million guns is a LOT of guns. cats out of the bag. no one's taking anything. even if they want to, the logistics would be near impossible. Most people have this figured out by now. The congresscritters who don't have this figured will figure out soon enough.

hang fire

January 7, 2013, 10:13 AM

http://www.lucianne.com/images/lucianne/DailyPhoto/2013-01-06.jpg

SlamFire1

January 7, 2013, 10:33 AM

Each Dot represents a future Home Invasion!!

I assume the registered firearms these people own are also part of a public record.

When the newspaper publishes that list, the criminals will then know which homes have the most firearms, and the most valuable firearms.

That will be excellent information as criminals will go after those homes first. :evil:

PATH

January 7, 2013, 12:10 PM

Hey Folks,

If you wish to follow what is going on with the permit outing scandal the Rockland County Times has all the up to date info.

How many people in this string have actually taken a look at their home state's laws on this particular matter?

South Carolina enacted a law in 2008 which restricts access to their list of Concealed Weapons Permit holders to law enforcement officials for official investigations or by subpoena or court order:

SLED must maintain a list of all permit holders and the current status of each permit. SLED may release the list of permit holders or verify an individual's permit status only if the request is made by a law enforcement agency to aid in an official investigation, or if the list is required to be released pursuant to a subpoena or court order. SLED may charge a fee not to exceed its costs in releasing the information under this subsection. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person in possession of a list of permit holders obtained from SLED must destroy the list.

Source: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c031.php

(See paragraph (I) of SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits in the above link.)

Here is what the Memphis Commercial Appeal returns on me:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/data/gunpermits/?appSession=146349641677214&RecordID=36795&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=&cbCurrentRecordPosition=1
They used to return street address as well, but were pressured by evil demon gun rights nuts into withholding street address. Really peeves off people who are stalking spouses with protective orders who have relocated and gotten permits out of fear. Street address would be useful.

Back to my use of the Commercial Appeal gun permit website:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/data/gunpermits/
According to CommApp reader Gregory W. Boller of Collierville TN, "If we know who these people are who carry concealed weapons, we can give them wide berth and/or keep their actions under close scrutiny."

Just this past week I had opportunity to test this.

Kingsport Times-News reported Antonio Johnson, 36, of Kingsport TN charged with firing shots in Blountvillle. On the list two persons same last, first name, Antioch TN YOB 1984, Memphis TN YOB 1972, apparently not the person I would need to beware of or keep under scrutiny.

Kingsport Times-News reported Derrick Dakota Kitzmiller, 21, of Gray TN charged with firing shots at Tennessee Highway Patrolman Jeff Appleba. On the list, "no records found" so if I relied on Commercial Appeal gun permit website, Derrick Kitzmiller would be an OK guy, not a person I would need to beware of or keep under scrutiny.

Back in the 1960s I sometimes would declare that "we gunowners are the n****rs of the liberals, the people the urban left love to hate and enjoy feeling superior to."

Reading some of the commentary supporting these outtings of gun permit holders by Journal News and Commercial Appeal and other newspapers, I have come to realize that we are the Juden Untermensch of this new generation of left wingnuts, and if they had their way we would be required to wear little yellow guns sewn to our clothes if we dared venture into public. (U Colorado has seperate dormitories for gun permit holders.) The worst of the anti-gun nuts have called for more Wacos (their version of Kristallnacht) to teach us a lesson.